Ok guys I keep reading about how what Tressel did was not "moral" and I need some assistance in trying to understand the basis of this claim as it relates to what he did and modern day society.

I'm trying to envision a real world situation where one would cry "immoral" for what Tressel did outside of say Salt Lake City? I understand the digs, I just think the "moral" rationale is absurd.

What is the basis for these claims?

It's a conceptual issue that is driving me crazy and I've heard it enough that I'd like to craft a proper response for it. Not to be combative, but rather to point out the absurdity of using language like that to describe what happened in this situation.

I met my Spergon Wynn's mom once in a bar in Houston. It was a little awkward.

So a corporate VP discovers information that could cost his company a chunk if not all of their quarterly profits. The damage would be limited to that quarter and no big deal. However, Senior VP decides that he needs an addition this quarter and hides the information from his CEO and Board while protecting his bonus at the same time. Months later when the CEO and Board find the info it turns up that they provided false reports to investors and may have even falsified their tax filings. Now the company is in danger of having to go private for a set period of time until they can get their house in order. And with the increased focus of the SEC on the firm all of the shortcuts all of the companies out there take are going to be dug into and turn up even more fundamental damage.

All of this could have been avoided had the Senior VP been honest with his employers and the general public.

That VP behaved morally in that instance?

Because JT wanted that addition and hid information from his bosses and the paying public.

That is amoral.

Last edited by e0y2e3 on Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.